537© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
A. Ortega-Rubio (ed.), Socio-ecological Studies in Natural Protected Areas,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47264-1_27
Chapter 27
Integration ofResident Fisherfolk
Communities inMarine Protected Areas
by Social Micro-entrepreneurships
ofMariculture: ACase Study atLa Paz
Bay, South Baja California, Mexico
MarioMonteforte-Sánchez
Abstract The global deterioration of vital ecosystems and natural resources has
compelled to constantly redene alternative futures. The creation of protected areas
(PAs) is considered among the best prescriptions to rise environmental conservation
insofar as multiple-objective established in the nations’ policies allows resident
communities to access productive opportunities through social micro-
entrepreneurships (SMEs). Although implementing PAs assumes conversion-
diversication processes designed for unique socio-ecologic timelines and
components by case, it is recognized that SMEs of ecotourism, small-scale farms,
and a rational exploitation of local natural resources are inherent vocational assets
that improve PA protability. The integration of rural/coastal groups in PA manage-
ment by productive SMEs is analyzed in this chapter. We discuss the development
and outcomes of this model applied in the real conditions of a marine-coastal PA
(MPA) in La Paz Bay, Baja California Sur, Mexico, the “Balandra-Merito” coastal
lagoon system. Here, the model comprises small-scale mariculture and coastal sh-
erfolk actors determined by the historical context of a case study. Using the narra-
tive visualization approach, we review the extension (capacity-building) programs
in which the roles of technologies and knowledge-holders signify decisive inu-
ences on the conguration of SMEs into or around protected areas. Prospects to
make Balandra-Merito MPA more cost-effective are examined.
Keywords Coastal sherfolks · Protected areas · Protable conservation ·
Mariculture · Social micro-entrepreneurships
M. Monteforte-Sánchez (*)
Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste (CIBNOR),
La Paz, Baja California Sur, México
e-mail: montefor04@cibnor.mx
538
27.1 Framework oftheCase Study
The global socioeconomic model has laid heavy footprints on almost every ecosys-
tem and natural resource, with evidences of fast deterioration in the last 30 or 40
years at such an extended rate that great awareness about the present widespread
crisis has been rising alerts to what it may come in the near future. Many summits,
conventions, and other global reunions assembled principally from the 1980s and
on keep searching for alternatives to regulate the consumption/waste model based
on the overexploitation of natural resources, and thus the character of sustainable
goals is in constant redenition from shorter to longer intervals (2050 so far), in
parallel to progressively complex socio-ecological scenarios. For example, 20 stra-
tegic goals, the Aichi targets, with biodiversity conservation as foremost aim, were
supposed to be achieved by 2020. We are there now, and it seems the compromises
comply just partially.
Because of many reasons, the social dimension in the rst place, marine coastal
areas have received systematic attention in nding better strategies for the manage-
ment stewardship of fundamental ecosystems and natural resources, particularly in
developing countries. For instance, the United Nations Ocean Conference (New
York, June 2017)
1
set forth a factsheet that summarized the ocean’s role in human
societies, and vice versa, to 51 points classied in 14 sectors (main roles) where
tropical coastal zones are highlighted in a substantial proportion: demography; sus-
tainable livelihoods; food security and health; conditions of small-scale sheries
and coastal sherfolks, similarly in rural-inland areas; effects of diverse forms of
tourism and land-based activities such as urban, agriculture, industries, ports, etc.;
status of mangroves, coral reefs, and coastal biodiversity in general; physical altera-
tions on coastlines; threats from sea-level rise and extreme weather events; issues of
displacement; and vulnerability at large. It is no surprise to observe the increasing
global move to create marine-coastal protected areas (MPAs henceforth) and/or spe-
cial measures on the utilization of vital ecosystems and key species.
There is, however, a situation of balance in the perception of the holistic effects
that PAs generate in terms of advantages and disadvantages in real conditions that
can be as specic and different as a single case study (Du etal. 2015; Oldekop etal.
2016; Le Gouvello etal. 2017). Although the IUCN categories system is the global
standard for PA governance adopted in practically every nation owning these natu-
ral assets, the conguration of virtual actions (e.g., planning stage and forecasts) or
adjustment of these actions to the current management framework (administrative,
productive, extractions, research, capacity-building, etc.) should nd alignments on
a wide array of components (actors and their institutions, development trend
adopted, cultural/psychological constellations, ecological-biogeographic contour,
timeline construction, etc.) and of terminology in consequence, that vary at national
and local scale (e.g., reserves, no-take zones, refuges, sanctuaries, parks, or a
1
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Ocean-fact-sheet-
package.pdf Accessed 4 December 2019.
M. Monteforte-Sánchez
539
generic “conservation area”). Likewise, there are different interpretations about
what is and how to apply multipurpose or multiple-use objectives in PA and dilem-
mas on conservation and production (e.g., Agardy etal. 2011; Bottema and Bush
2012; Oldekop etal. 2016; Du etal. 2015; Le Gouvello etal. 2017), which addresses
to insights necessarily related to management and planning methods that connect in
particular way to a “tropical” stereotype, the said Third World developing countries,
more so if rural or coastal communities are involved (Agardy etal. 2011; Bennett
and Dearden 2014a; Segi 2014; Du etal. 2015). In the practice, implementing PAs
(what and how will be protected, by whom, reasons/aims, benets and target recipi-
ents, and other criteria) entails that the “willingness,” a common guideline in
research surveys of perception/acceptance, should be more properly dened as the
attempt to convince proud and distrustful people to appropriate a proposal and of
skeptical decision-makers in facilitating the process (e.g., Perkins et al. 2002;
Brugère etal. 2008; Awortwi 2012; Cundill etal. 2017).
Certainly the IUCN categories encourage community-based management
through social micro-entrepreneurships (SMEs hereafter),
2
but lessons learned in
real conditions reveal that the concept of multiple objective alluded to those catego-
ries delivers few and narrow windows to accommodate local communities with pro-
ductive activities into or on the periphery of PAs. The initiatives aiming at the
protection of a given area or resource have to deem the presence of resident com-
munities whose livelihoods rely on the exploitation of those native resources aimed
to protect (sheries, wood, recollection, soils of artisanal mining, etc.), and/or they
have farms (agriculture and terrestrial and/or aquatic commercial livestock), and/or
work on ecotourism (freelance or employed by private enterprises),
3
or other
income-producing activities derived from regional/local assets, even hunting and
leisure/sport shery. Evidence shows that tourism-oriented SMEs have been the
preferred choice to realize protable community-based actions in continental and
coastal PAs. This image is the mainstream projection of (tropical) PAs in the tour-
ism market. On the other hand, the IUCN system allows farming modalities into
PAs if explicit benchmarks are fullled within two compartments: restoration-
restocking and countless modalities of small-scale production.
4
Therefore, a direct
2
Community-based social micro-entrepreneurship (SME). See Brugère etal. (2008), Berkes and
Davidson-Hunt (2010), and Davidson-Hunt etal. (2012), among others.
3
Community-based tourism (tourism-oriented SMEs) is inherent to low-impact sustainable tour-
ism in many forms (ecotourism, geotourism, ethnic/cultural tourism, pearling tourism, adventure,
gastronomic, health, etc.), and there are different denitions for each (see Boley etal. 2016). In this
chapter the reference to ecotourism is used in generalized term, unless it is specied where
necessary.
4
It is common to nd productive SMEs doing husbandry of local species into or around PAs with
different degrees of protection. Examples of rustic cultivation technologies include medicinal,
ornamental, and “organic” plants; honey; cheese and other milk by-products—goats, cattle; leather
from animal breeding, even alligators; pet breeding (iguanas, turtles, aquarium sh, etc.); and
diverse gastronomic products that include marine and freshwater aquaculture, besides nacre and
pearl-bearing mollusks like naiads, abalone, and pearl oysters (Monteforte and Cariño 2011;
Bennett and Dearden 2014b p.98). Browse the Internet.
27 Integration of Resident Fisherfolk Communities in Marine Protected Areas…
540
deduction that emerges from conveying protable conservation and community-
based SMEs of ecotourism and/or cultivation of target species (plant or animal)
integrated to PAs management would lean to underscore biogeographic interactions
which, in terms of the geographic distribution of PAs (e.g., type of ecosystem and
species), are concentrated on certain kinds of biodiversity (e.g., Agardy etal. 2011;
Monteforte and Cariño 2011; Hjalager and Johansen 2013; Slater etal. 2013; Hill
2017; Le Gouvello etal. 2017). In addition, the scope to implement ecotourism and/
or farmer SME models in real conditions, rather than being theoretical, depends on
strategies specially devised to meet socio-ecological and cultural proles prevailing
in a focus case, where multifaceted dynamics of ecosystem-based factors and case-
based indicators vary even within a locality and over time (e.g., Bondad-Reantaso
etal. 2009; Slater etal. 2013; Le Gouvello etal. 2017). Overarching distinctions
linked to regional/local geographical features of marine coastal and continental PAs
stand out in the rst place. Although both domains equally share the sense of iconic
value (cf. natural asset, emblematic belonging, or marketable attribute) ascribed to
a set of ecosystems and species biogeographically determined therein, those such
dynamics take place in totally different spaces; obviously the separation is blurry in
most MPAs. It also applies to cultivation modalities with a set of commercial spe-
cies that ultimately can propel gastronomic tourism (Hjalager and Johansen 2013;
Slater etal. 2013) and/or added value from ornamental marine species, seaweeds,
and pearl oysters (Ferse etal. 2012, Monteforte and Cariño 2013, 2018, Bennett and
Dearden 2014b p.98, Le Gouvello etal. 2017, among others).
Another point of view to integrate resident communities in their inland or marine
PA concerns the premise that conversion-diversication processes should not beget
tangible changes to entrenched livelihoods (Bondad-Reantaso etal. 2009; Slater
etal. 2013; Bennett and Dearden 2014a; Cundill etal. 2017). In approach to MPAs,
these processes have to focus in coastal sherfolk groups often organized in coop-
eratives or similar associations, considering that the regulations in many MPAs may
restrain artisanal sheries as well as certain modalities of mariculture or commer-
cial species. Resident sherfolk represent one of the major conictual issues in
MPAs since they often feel the proposals about conservation and protection as a
threat of privatization and exclusion (e.g., Cárdenas and Ostrom 2004; Leopold
etal. 2013; Bennett and Dearden 2014a; Segi 2014; Bennett etal. 2015; Hill 2017;
Woodhouse etal. 2018). Contrary cases do happen when the locals undertake the
initiative to create their PA and regulate the extractions of resources and/or access
to the site ecosystems. In any event, the participants into collective initiatives aimed
to conservation programs should have to believe on it as a potential instrument to
obtain some benet (abstract, material, economic) from the trade-off (Cárdenas and
Ostrom 2004; Awortwi 2012; Bennett and Dearden 2014a; Cundill et al. 2017).
Taking inconsideration the MPAs’ own natural vocations to develop mariculture
ventures, sherfolk should become primary actors to organize the management
policies for the area, whether planned or in course. The IUCN system advises a zon-
ing approach (e.g., buffer and core or nucleus zones and aperipheral strip) as the
best practice guide to organize multiple-objective PAs, each type of zone has differ-
ent objectives, and some allow for greater utilization of resources than others.
M. Monteforte-Sánchez
541
In MPAs, this implies tridimensional zoning in order to cover the water column and
the seabed. There are open-ocean PAs as well though not yet formal because indus-
trial sheries introduce a different outlook (Bennett etal. 2015; Briscoe etal. 2016)
and some consider that islands are oceanic.
This chapter subscribes to coastal planning practices in rapidly changing scener-
ies where decision-makers at the moment almost always worsen the troubles already
accumulated over time, often to alert states, or introduce new ones. Due to the grow-
ing pressure from development models at different scales, a question is reiterated in
forums, workshops, and case studies: What to do with sherfolk communities? Or
rather, what could motivate them to participate in conversion/diversication pro-
cesses related (or not) to MPAs?
With that in mind, a case study is examined alongside four main components that
regularly concur in PAs where private or communitarian farms existed before and
had to be adjusted (e.g., modify the technology and/or change to small-scale) or were
closed or are part of the planned perspective. These components are the following:
(1) availability and access to certied technologies (mariculture in the case) ade-
quately designed for (2) target groups (sherfolk herein) and for (3) the prevailing
factors of governance on the PA case study (MPA, this study) that includes the atti-
tude of different stakeholders (e.g., national/international agencies, academic insti-
tutes, civil organizations and their sponsors, commercial and entrepreneurial sectors,
special interest groups, and other leading persons) and, nally, (4) a timeline review
at conversion and diversication processes of target groups upon technology- based
SMEs, like coastal sherfolks with small-scale mariculture of which the literature
contains hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples (many with gender orientation)
investigated in tropical coasts (e.g., Brugère etal. 2001; Bondad- Reantaso et al.
2009; Slater etal. 2013; Ateweberhan etal. 2018), which comprise pearl oysters (see
Monteforte and Cariño 2013) and ornamental marine species (Ferse etal. 2012).
The present study is located in La Paz Bay, Baja California Sur (BCS), México,
into a coastal lagoon system locally known as “Balandra” which owns the label of
MPA since 2012 as Area of Protection of Flora and Fauna (DOF 2012). Actually, the
MPA extends southward to El Merito and Falsa Bay coastal lagoons and comprises
the adjacent marine area (Fig.27.1). This chapter addresses a narrative visualization
approach (Ma etal. 2011; Dahlstrom 2014) to explain the historic role of the main
factors that led to the current scenery in this MPA and their decisive inuence in
making La Paz an important hub of mariculture science and technology. This attri-
bute should be applied in the implementation of sherfolk-based mariculture SMEs
as a protable alternative to achieve better management of this site, which could be
replicated in other MPAs that have good conditions to ensure this type of models be
successful. Ultimately, the analysis would be useful elsewhere to motivate capacity-
building programs and conservation policies by linking beneciaries, professional
experts, and stakeholders by effective actions in that direction.
27 Integration of Resident Fisherfolk Communities in Marine Protected Areas…
542
Fig. 27.1 Geographic location of the Marine Protected Area Balandra-Merito and delimitations of
the zones at La Paz Bay, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Elaborated by the Laboratory of Geographic
Information Systems and the Department of Extension and Scientic Diffusion (CIBNOR)
M. Monteforte-Sánchez
543
27.2 Description oftheStudy Area
Numerous legal instruments—laws, decrees, secretarial agreements, and ofcial
standards—regulate coastal and marine issues in Mexico (Fraga and Jesus 2008;
Havard et al. 2015). Among the most important laws pertaining to the rights to
exploit natural resources for any purpose is the General Law of Ecological
Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (LGEEPA). It denes the tools of the
national environment policy within the logic of a sustainable management of natural
resources so that economic benets could be obtained while preserving the ecosys-
tem (Fraga and Jesus 2008). In addition to the LGEEPA, a considerable number of
legal instruments focus in conservation and use of the biological diversity
(Table27.1). Likewise, La Paz Bay is a Marine Site Priority declared by the National
Commission of Biodiversity (CONABIO); the Espiritu Santo archipelago is a
National Park and belongs to the World Natural Heritage (UNESCO) stated for the
Gulf of California islands, and Balandra-Merito and Falsa Bay coastal lagoons
zones encompass an Area of Protection of Flora and Fauna (Fig. 27.1). These
lagoons host wetland scrubs-mangrove ecosystems under Ramsar status; besides,
the character of arid mangrove represents eminent importance as a relict ecosystem
(Arreola-Lizárraga etal. 2004; Adame etal. 2018). The statement applies to the
madreporian corals forming the typical rock-coralline ecosystem present along the
BCS east coast, specially thriving in Loreto and Cabo Pulmo national parks. There
are more labels related to the study area:
• Ensenada de La Paz (Fig.27.2) isa Conservation Area for Birds (1998), and its
wetland-mangrove ecosystem is Ramsar. There are initiatives to create in this
singular Ensenada a refuge or sanctuary dedicated to dolphins that are common
dwellers in the channels and deep areas there inside (deep, 6–10m at most).
• Several resident and migrant marine species present in La Paz Bay are under
special protection (NOM-059-SEMARNAT); therefore also their territories are
fairly protected (turtles, birds, marine mammals, and some species with com-
mercial value).
• There are social initiatives to protect La Paz Bay cultural heritage, like the
remains of Indian groups, Pericúes and Guaycuras, in El Conchalito (south coast
of Ensenada de La Paz, nearby the downtown), and the Compañia Criadora de
Concha y Perla (CCCP) founded by Gaston Vives in Espiritu Santo island
(Cariño 1998; Cariño and Monteforte 1999). Some local sectors wish the origi-
nal CCCP installations be restored as a museum. Other initiatives aim to restrain
transit (off-road vehicles), sand extraction, or residential buildings in sand dune
ecosystems that are the dominant morphology of La Paz Bay continental coast-
line (Fig.27.2).
27 Integration of Resident Fisherfolk Communities in Marine Protected Areas…
544
27.2.1 La Paz Bay Presentation
La Paz Bay and islands close by (Cerralvo, Espiritu Santo archipelago, San
Francisquito and San José) are placed on the southeast of Baja California Sur (BCS)
(Figs.27.1 and 27.2) facing the Gulf of California. The Bay is about 83km on the
NW-SE axis and 35km on the NE-SW axis (2600km
2
). The aerial view shows that
landscapes of dunes and sandy beaches of smooth slope are the dominant landscape
along the continental coast. There are discontinuous bands of rock-and-boulder
beaches and rocky-coralline reefs (Fig. 27.2) better developed on the southeast
coast from La Paz city to the boundary of Balandra, around Espíritu Santo
archipelago, and on the north entrance of the Bay (El Portugués and Punta del
Mechudo area). Rocky-coralline reefs represent biodiversity centers in the Bay;
they stretch down like cliffs of different inclination on the range of 8–15m of depth
in general and to 25–30m of depth in some places such as the Balandra-Merito
MPA zone and west face of Espiritu Santo.
Table 27.1 Main legal instruments that regulate conservation and use biological diversity in
Mexico
Environmental regulations Management/production sector
General Wildlife Law (LGVS)
Federal Fisheries Law (LFP)
General Law for Sustainable Fisheries and
Aquaculture (LGPAS)
General Law for Sustainable Forestry
Development (LGDFS)
Ofcial Mexican Standard (NOM), for
instance, NOM-059-Secretaría de Medio
Ambiente y Recursos Naturales
(SEMARNAT)-2001 lists threatened and
endangered species and NOM-022-
SEMARNAT-2003 regulates conservation,
sustainable use, and restoration of coastal
wetlands located in mangrove areas
General Law of National Property (LGBN),
which incorporates legislation on coastal areas
(such as beaches), the 20m federal maritime-
terrestrial zone (ZOFEMAT) and reclaimed
land
Federal Tourism Law (LFT) regulates all
tourism activities
Federal Sea Law (LFM), the General Health
Law (LGS), and the National Waters Law
(LAN) control ocean pollution
Ports Law (LP) and the Navigation Law (LN)
regulate marine transportation, prohibiting all
vessels from contaminating the country’s
waters
Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural
Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA).
Mainly intermedia of nancial functions in
regard of productive projects
Nacional Commission of Fisheries and
Aquaculture (CONAPESCA), attached to
SAGARPA.Concessions, permits, liaison
agents with the productive sector (cooperatives)
Secretariat of Environment and Natural
Resources (SEMARNAT). Coordinates
environmental management in Mexico, e.g.,
evaluation of reports of environmental impact
assessments, management of PAs, etc.
National Commission of Protected Areas
(CONANP), subscribed to
SEMARNAT.Vigilance, management,
administration of PAs (regional)
Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection
(PROFEPA). Law enforcement of
environmental protection
Other entities related to quality and health
controls on the products (e.g., cultivation) and
the environment
Trend toward scientic-technologic parks to
promote private investment (national and
foreign) in the sector of primary production
such as aquaculture. This trend involves
technologies that usually are in the hands of
academic institutions housing their park
Modied from Fraga and Jesus (2008) and Havard etal. (2015)
M. Monteforte-Sánchez
545
Small colonies of mangrove and wetland vegetation (some barely one or two
square meters) are found into many small bays and coves or compose larger exten-
sions in coastal lagoons (Fig.27.2). Over time, a narrow sand bar called El Mogote
enclosed a shallow coastal lagoon (Ensenada de La Paz) with marginal wetlands
and branched channels barely 12–14m of depth in the deepest points.
Fig. 27.2 Representative types of coastline around La Paz Bay and islands close by, with refer-
ence points mentioned in the text. (Modied from Google Earth. Author’s work)
27 Integration of Resident Fisherfolk Communities in Marine Protected Areas…
546
La Paz Bay contains the largest and deepest water body enclosure around the
Gulf of California. The seaoor topography resembles an elongated funnel with its
vertex, the Alfonso Basin, placed at 420m of depth and a slope mounting to shallow
ats of less than 20 m of depth along 60–65 km toward La Paz city coastline
(Fig.27.3). This shape was formed by water current regimes that alternate a domi-
nant vector entering the northern mouth (San Cosme Corridor, 300–350m depth)
with tidal exchange through San Lorenzo channel, which is as shallow as 20m of
depth, while the outer border of the Bay rapidly falls to more than 2000m of depth
in a short distance toward the Gulf of California. Therefore, La Paz Bay behaves
like a trap of water bodies and sediments that have been transported by the south-
ward dominant current from as far as the Colorado River (Cadena-Cárdenas etal.
2009; Silverberg etal. 2014). This orientation and its position in respect of oceanic
water bodies (Gulf of California and Pacic) impel a dominant yet moderate coun-
terclockwise direction to La Paz Bay water body (Obeso-Nieblas etal. 2002, 2014;
Silverberg etal. 2014), thereby the funneled shape of which about 95% of the sea-
bed is sandy and 50% of it is at less than 50m of depth (López-Cortés etal. 2012),
and the hydrographic dynamics toward the southeast area during live tides that
improve the primary productivity and nutrient contents (e.g., water exchange, ux
of currents at wide depth range, upwellings, revolver-eddies, rip currents in the
coves, events of water stratication, etc.) (Obeso-Nieblas etal. 2002, 2014; López-
Cortés et al. 2012; Silverberg et al. 2014). However, the overall circulation and
water exchange rate within the Bay is slow (“sluggish currents,” as Silverberg etal.
2014 wrote down), which means that the water body tends to remain inside for some
time. Actually, the maximum normal tidal height range uctuates between 0+2m
and 0+2.5m, in occasion to 0+3m, and the maximum normal in-out water speed
in San Lorenzo Channel (live tides) oscillates on 3–4 knots (about 6km per hour).
In steady tide conditions, you can cross with a kayak or swimming. It is approxi-
mately 6.5km on the shortest distance.
La Paz is BCS’ state capital city with a population of 280,000 habitants, roughly
the 40% of the total state population (719,000). The cities of San José del Cabo and
Cabo San Lucas (popularly gathered as Los Cabos) sum 240,000 habitants together.
Other relevant concentration cities are Ciudad Insurgentes, Ciudad Constitución,
Mulegé, Loreto, Santa Rosalía, Guerrero Negro, San Ignacio, and Todos Santos.
There are 20–24 sherfolk cooperatives (Cooperative Society of Fishery
Production, or SCPP) of different size (some SCPP are formed by 3 or 4 friends or
relatives, others are gathered into two or three Federations, and there is an unstable
number of sherfolks registered as “free shermen”—pescadores libres) operat-
ing from La Paz over a marine area as extended as their simple equipment
(26–28ft. panga and outboard engine up to 120 HP) lets them draw away the coast
(Guzmán- Vizcarra and Ibáñez-Pérez 2018). In fact, the major shery effort (prin-
cipally sh) is concentrated outside the Bay, though some product is shed in the
interior, mostly bivalves like Catarina scallop, pen-shell, two or three species of
M. Monteforte-Sánchez
548
clam (CONAPESCA 2018), and an unknown capture of ornamental marine
species, yet the traditional sherfolk does not work on the activity. It is a different
sector, furtive much of it.
Additional features of La Paz Bay worth to know point out a very active ecotour-
ism that exploits the biogeographic regional assets (sea lion colonies, whale-shark,
marine birds, snorkeling, camping, sport-shing, etc.). There is private enterprises
(some are micro, and some are larger habitually foreign) in one hand and short tours
in touristic boats in the other. Almost any boat owner is allowed to carry out this
activity as long as it meets a long series of requirements, like training as a tour guide
included rst aid and services quality (e.g., food, sanitary, garbage disposal). In
addition, boats must comply to mandatory specications (size/design, engine power,
safety, comfort), and the requirements overall are stricter upon SCUBA diving and
snorkeling. Therefore, this model may deter the average sherfolk, or simply they
cannot afford the technical requirements.
Another feature in the Bay is the presence of incipient (private) mariculture
in operation: one shrimp farm (white-legged Litopenaeus vannamei), one of
yellowtail Seriola lalandi in offshore cages and aquapods, and a pearl oyster
farm of Pteria sterna (see Sect. 32.3). Importantly, urban sprawl and coastal
megaprojects (the classical gated mini-cities of marina-golf-villas) have
impacted on ecosystem services provoking inefcient drainage, water loss and
insufcient recharge of the aquifer, and overmining and salinization in conse-
quence (McEvoy 2014; Haeffner etal. 2018). We see excessive waste and a
growing number of obsolete vehicles. Two smoky fuel-hungry power plants
placed near La Paz must be fed by tanker ships to supply the city’s electricity
and also to both Cabos and villages in the middle, which generates high pollu-
tion and constant spills and accidents. Domestic gas and most of the fuel for the
vehicles comes through the same way.
27.2.2 Status ofBalandra-Merito
After the 1910 Mexican Revolution, slices of the Baja California Peninsula (short
coastlines and broad terrain inland) became a sort custom gift to notable persons
who had participated in the insurrection, like high-graded military and politicians.
With the time, the ejido system (communal land), different proprietary families,
and real-estate agencies got intermixed in land tenures (Gámez and Angeles 2010;
Anderson 2017). Furthermore, several Presidents, top-placed functionaries of the
Mexican government, and rich magnates had the customary practice of declaring
“from-here-to-there” a personal (governmental?) possession. The aftermaths of
these circumstances, combined with the characteristic aridity and isolation of the
coastal zone around the Peninsula, the southern part in particular, have drawn
striking divergences between large unproductive areas bounded to isolation
against regions such as La Paz and “Los Cabos” that have been unable to match
M. Monteforte-Sánchez
549
the increasing demands of the development model established in the region
(Gámez 2008; Gámez and Angeles 2010).
The MPA of our case study did not linger to that trend of appropriation. Among
the many hot spots related to real-estate speculation on touristic megaprojects in
Mexico (Murray 2007; Monteforte and Cariño 2009; Gámez and Angeles 2010;
Anderson 2017), this MPA has attained high relevance even in the international
media. Balandra itself, in addition to housing one of the largest mangrove/wetland
(relict) colony on the western coast of the Gulf of California (aside Mulegé and
Concepción Bay), owns emblematic value of great signicance for the locals (pace-
ños). The proximity to La Paz City (10–12km from downtown and there are public
buses and paved road), and its shape of natural swimming pool with nice sandy
beach, converts this area the favorite destination of families with children and any-
one who wishes to spend a pleasant day in the beach. Balandra, the “jewel of BCS,”
is among the beautiful and worldwide famous beaches labeled by the Travelers
Choice Awards 2019 of the TripAdvisor as second best beach in Mexico, only
topped by Playa Norte, Mujeres Island in the Caribbean.
Truly said, the coastal zone at Merito lagoon and also other portions of the
MPA do not display such as popular beaches; nevertheless, the exceptional ocean-
front landscape, the proximity to La Paz, and consequently the high real-estate
value are coveted objects. Long-time environmentalist movements have escalated
to protect the area from the descendants of a former President who claim the own-
ership of 1500 Ha with adjacent coastline and pretend to develop another one of
those classic megaprojects (Cariño etal. 2008). As expected, other persons and
families dispute older land titles that still present overlapping perimeters anyway.
Crisscrossed wire fences and grilles with brightly colored signs of “private prop-
erty” (English and Spanish) coined to different companies or persons are the nor-
mal sightseeing on the way to Balandra, and in many coastal areas of BCS, as a
matter of fact (Cariño etal. 2008; Monteforte and Cariño 2009). Despite the cir-
cumstances, local civil movements to protect Balandra, and Merito in extension,
have achieved several successes, for example, Balandra enjoyed the label of
Municipal Park between 1998 and 2002, not entirely ofcial but rather as the
result of those such movements that culminated in 2004 with a decree of MPA
(Ecological Conservation Zone and of Interest to the Community) on nearly 2000
Ha and adjacent water (Cariño etal. 2008), and nally the present status of Area
of Protection of Flora and Fauna since 2012 (DOF 2012) (Fig.27.1). Hashtags
#BalandraEsNuestra (Balandra is ours) are constant in social networks; eventu-
ally it triggers public manifestations as often as the promoters re-insist in re-
commence their project, which is standby for the moment. Today, the Colectivo
Balandra constitutes one of the primary sprockets of the local environmentalism
movement centered in the area. To a certain extent, the decree of Espiritu Santo
archipelago as National Park and its inscription in UNESCO’s list of the World
Natural Patrimony at Risk, and also the Ramsar designation for wetlands and the
distinctive biodiversity of La Paz Bay, have been supportive arguments to incor-
porate Balandra-Merito in the same terms.
27 Integration of Resident Fisherfolk Communities in Marine Protected Areas…
550
27.3 Inuence oftheMPA Balandra-Merito intheMexican
Mariculture
The marine coastal area in this MPA harbors one of the three best suitable areas in
La Paz Bay
5
to install mariculture farms of bivalves and sh (Fig.27.4) (Lechuga-
Devéze 2012; Monteforte 2013). Table 27.2 compiles a chronologic resume
(1939–2019) related to mariculture development in La Paz Bay, with emphasis in
the MPA Balandra-Merito-Falsa Bay and based on landmark projects and pioneers
in their respective institutions. We did not append the start interval of 1902–1914in
which the Compañia Criadora de Concha y Perla could have installed spat collec-
tion experiments for the mother-of-pearl Pinctada mazatlanica in the extant MPA
(Cariño 1998). After the destruction of this enterprise in 1914, the shery for pearl
oyster shell (P. mazatlanica, primarily)
6
became so intensive that the wild stock
reached high level of exhaustion leading the economic bonanza of La Paz to end by
the middle 1930s and to a permanent ban on pearl oyster sheries in 1940. In the
meantime, there is no evidence of developments in mariculture science and technol-
ogy
7
or active farms in Mexico whereas freshwater sh aquaculture received more
attention (Morales-Díaz 2015; Cuéllar-Lugo etal. 2018). It was until 1939 when a
private project focused in P. mazatlanica occurred in La Paz Bay, yet it did not work
by cultivation techniques like Gaston Vives in his CCCP.Instead, they employed
diving gear to extract wild specimens and gather them in culture artifacts to practice
pearl induction surgery (Table27.2). This project was the rst of the three major
ascos (1979 and 1980) on the matter of pearl oysters, so far in the Gulf of California,
because they aimed to an already depleted wild stock to produce cultured pearls. In
addition, the three projects took place in the MPA and were assisted by (Japanese)
specialists who were meeting P. mazatlanica for the rst time. There is no evidence
5
The single Balandra lagoon is unsuitable for mariculture installations. Falsa Bay is placed on the
mouth of Pichilingue Port that lodges cargo ships, shing boats, and large ferryboats. Although the
Port capacity is small (amount/size of units and transit ow), this is a minus point to water quality
for mariculture of edible species, lter-feeding mollusks in particular. The area between Diablo
Point and the southern tip of San Juan Nepomuceno Barr is the second favorite in La Paz Bay.
Number one is placed on the southeast of Espiritu Santo archipelago (Ballena islet to San Gabriel
Bay), and the third is on the northwest of the Bay (Figs.27.2 and 27.3). Other hierarchical criteria
include technical and logistic variables, oceanography, depth, experimental data, etc. (Monteforte
2005, 2013; Lechuga-Devéze 2012).
6
For centuries, and in every pearling region in the world, sheries for pearl oysters aimed to nacre
shells as the main objective. Species of the genus Pinctada (mother-of-pearl oyster) were preferred
because of their at-shaped shell that suited the enormous button-making and nacre inlay industry
until the 1870s decade when the nacre was substituted by plastic.
7
The rst traces of mariculture research in Mexico appear by 1940, curiously most of them con-
centrated in the Gulf of California. For instance, the universities of Sonora and Sinaloa opened the
line of marine sciences in that period (Morales-Díaz 2015; Cuéllar-Lugo etal. 2018). Also, the
UNAM creates the BSc. in Hydrobiology in the Biology Faculty that established the basis for the
Institute of Marine Sciences and Limnology in the 1960s and its campus at Mazatlán, Sinaloa, in
the 1970s.
M. Monteforte-Sánchez
551
known about round pearls resulting from their learning, and it said that they also
tried the surgery on the winged pearl oyster Pteria sterna, the sister pearl oyster
species of the region.
27.3.1 Timeline Overview
The MPA remained in standby from 1940 until the early 1960s when it started to
acquire a signicant role in research studies and commercial mariculture in Mexico.
The pearling vision has persisted throughout new developments on other commer-
cial native species of gourmet bivalves and sh that began by the 1970s and were
diversied and perfected over time (Table27.2). Much of the importance of La Paz
as scientic and technologic center of mariculture in Mexico is linked to a variety
experimental studies installed in the said MPA that constitute today a valuable body
of systematic information and postgraduate thesis about the area and La Paz Bay.
However, its suitable qualities for mariculture brought private entrepreneurs to
Fig. 27.4 Location of aquaculture licenses (Permit for Aquaculture Fomentation -PAF and
Aquaculture Concession -CA) in La Paz Bay with zoom on Balandra-Merito-Falsa Bay area.
Yellow polygons correspond to licenses in force; green ones are in process of renewal or have
ceased their activity. (Modied from Google Earth with the KML/KMZ layers for PAFs and CAs
available in Acuasesor SAGARPA/CONAPESCA.Updated to 2018)
27 Integration of Resident Fisherfolk Communities in Marine Protected Areas…
552
Table 27.2 Chronologic brieng (1939–2019) of landmark projects and pioneers related to
mariculture in La Paz Bay, with emphasis in the MPA Balandra-Merito
Date/actors
MPA and/or
inuence Actions Outcomes
The pearl oysters sector
1939. Y.Matsuii,
Mexico-Japan
agreement
La Paz and Loreto
Bays. Operative
station in Falsa Bay
Prospection for natural
beds; pearl culture
assays on wild
individuals
Very scarce natural
populations. Large
mortality postsurgery.
Project abandoned
1961–1962.
Secretaría de Pesca
Falsa Bay and
Merito Point Diablo
Assays of spat
collection and
extensive culture
Results not satisfactory.
Project cancelled, change
government actors
1962 A.Martínez
CRIP, Secretaría de
Pesca
La Paz and Loreto
Bays, islands
nearby
Prospection for natural
beds and transplants
Populations in alarming
state of exhaustion.
Barely acceptable results
on transplanting. Project
abandoned
1969–1972 Denis
George (Australia),
agreement with the
Secretaría de Pesca
Merito-Pt. Diablo Spat collection and
culture (Mabé and
round pearls in wild
individuals)
Great mortality and
rejection postsurgery.
Promising results on
extensive culture
1970–1971M.Díaz-
Garcés and A.Gallo
(Mexico); trained by
D.George in 1969
Merito-Pt. Diablo Extensive culture and
Mabé implants
Good results, but the
commercial initiative did
not progress because of
political rivalries. Project
abandoned with a large
economic loss
1979 Shoei Shirai
and K.Sano (Japan),
agreement with the
Secretaría de Pesca
La Paz Bay (Falsa
Bay)
Prospection for natural
beds attempt to install
a pearl farm (Falsa
Bay); pearl culture in
wild individuals
Deceiving results
concerning abundance of
pearl oysters. Great
mortality and rejection
postsurgery. Project
abandoned
1976–1978
government project
La Paz Bay. Install
in Falsa Bay and
Merito-Pt. Diablo
Assay of extensive
culture
Acceptable results.
Project abandoned
because of budget
shortfall and
administrative shifts
1979–1980. K.Sano
and Yamamoto,
agreement with
private group in La
Paz
Extraction of wild
stock from La Paz
Bay and islands.
Installations at
Merito-Pt. Diablo
Pearl culture in wild
individuals
Scandalous failure.
Ransack of natural beds.
Expensive installations
were abandoned and later
pillaged
1981–1982 Jaime
Singh (CRIP-BCS,
Secretaría de Pesca,
Mexico)
La Paz Bay.
Installs. In Falsa
Bay
Assays of extensive
culture; pearl culture in
wild individuals
Good results overall. High
mortality postsurgery. No
pearls
(continued)
M. Monteforte-Sánchez
553
Table 27.2 (continued)
Date/actors
MPA and/or
inuence Actions Outcomes
1987 Manuel Mazón
(CRIP-BCS,
Mexico)
Laboratory research Hatchery studies in
P. mazatlanica
Gonad conditioning and
larval growth and survival
were acceptable. No
xation. Project
abandoned
1988–1998 Pearl
Oysters Research
Group (GOP) of
CIBNOR
La Paz Bay and
islands nearby.
Station network,
installations in La
Paz Bay included
Espiritu Santo
Island. Surveys on
the north coast up
to Bay of Los
Ángeles
Research on extensive
culture and pearl
production in
P. mazatlanica and Pt.
sterna. Restocking in
La Paz Bay by
repopulation cells of
these species and other
commercial bivalves
studied there
Harvest high-quality
Mabé pearls in April
1992. Certied
technology of extensive
culture in 1998. Punctual
experiments continued
until 2004 (certication of
Icon Pearls). Inuence in
the NOM-058 for pearl
oyster farms and pearl
culture in Mexico (2013)
2002–2004
Ingeniería y Síntesis
(private group
assisted by GOP/
CIBNOR)
Merito-Pt.Diablo Pilot commercial,
extensive culture of
P. mazatlanica and
Mabé
Harvest of 1500
high-quality Mabé. The
project did not continue
From 2001 UABCS
(Perlas del Cortéz)
Gaviota Island Extensive culture of Pt.
sterna
Smaller than the farm at
Guaymas. Harvest is only
Mabé so far, jewelry and
nacre-based cosmetic
products
Gourmet and marine aquarium sectors
Late 1970s. Araceli
Avilés and group
(CRIP La Paz)
Falsa Bay Research on sh and
bivalve culture
Technologic basis
From 1986. Carlos
Cáceres. UABCS
La Paz Bay and
Espiritu Santo
Island. Station
network. Campus in
Pichilingue
Research on extensive
and semi-extensive
culture of bivalves and
pearl oysters.
Restocking of corals
Detailed timeline of
environmental parameters
and mariculture indicators
on the species. Owner of
Perlas del Cortéz farm
(Pteria sterna extensive
culture
From 1990 Arturo
Tripp CETMAR
Ensenada de La
Paz, Falsa Bay
Research on extensive
and semi-extensive
culture of scallop
Argopecten ventricosus
and pen-shell Pinna
rugosa and Atrina
maura
Detailed timeline of
environmental parameters
and mariculture indicators
on the species
(continued)
27 Integration of Resident Fisherfolk Communities in Marine Protected Areas…
554
Table 27.2 (continued)
Date/actors
MPA and/or
inuence Actions Outcomes
From 2007. Miguel
Robles. Acuacultura
Robles
Commercial bivalve
seed production in
laboratory. San Juan
Nepomuceno Barr
Major regional supplier
of seed of the common
commercial native
species (Catarina
scallop, both pen
shells, oysters included
the introduced
Japanese Crassostrea
gigas and Ostrea
sikamea, and mule-paw
cockles Anadara spp.)
Most of the product is
received by producers in
the west coast of BCS
although a small farmer
has recently installed in
Ensenada de La Paz.
Isolated experiments in
Merito-Point Diablo
(CIBNOR’s installation)
From 2002
CIBNOR.Different
users of the
Aquaculture
Program
Merito-Point
Diablo, Gaviota
Island, and
intermittent sites in
Espiritu Santo
Island, Ensenada de
La Paz, and the Bay
Research on extensive
and semi-extensive
culture of commercial
sh (Lutjanids, Seriola,
Totoaba), edible
bivalves and pearl
oysters, and
ornamental marine
species. Monitoring
Certied technologies
have ensured the
commercial production of
sh in La Paz Bay and
mainly bivalves in other
sites of the west BCS
coast
From the 1990s.
CRIP, CICIMAR,
CETMAR,
UABCS.Different
users (e.g., student
thesis, sponsored
projects, etc.)
Merito-Point
Diablo, Gaviota
Island, and
intermittent sites in
Espiritu Santo
Island, Ensenada de
La Paz, and the Bay
Diverse experiments of
short duration,
principally on bivalves
and sh (snappers,
Lutjanidae, and
seabasses, Serranidae)
Important assets of data
and information
2010–2014 sherfolk
cooperatives (SCPP)
assisted by Mario
Monteforte
Merito-Point Diablo Polyspecic extensive
culture of gourmet
bivalves; special
devices tested for
ornamental marine
species
A capacity-building
action; promising results;
abandon due to issues of
group dynamics and
nances (see Monteforte
and Cariño 2018)
From 2012 to 2013.
CIBNOR creates the
aquaculture park
Biohelix (*)
La Paz Bay,
Ensenada de La
Paz.
Commercial culture of
Lutjanids, Seriola spp.,
Totoaba, and shrimp
L. vannamei and
Penaeus californiensis
(brown shrimp)
Promote private
investment in aquaculture.
Fisherfolk groups often
do not t in this kind of
models
Hot spot cases
2002–2004 private
Mexican enterprise
foreign partners.
North Gaviota
Island
Yellown tuna
ranching
Issues of logistic,
provision, and nancial
nature led the project to
fail. Moving to semi-
extensive culture of
Seriola lalandi with
CIBNOR support
(continued)
M. Monteforte-Sánchez
555
install a tuna ranch in 2003 (Monteforte 2008) and cage culture of exotic hybrid
striped bass Morone saxatilis × M. chrysops and Mediterranean gilthead seabream
Sparus aurata in 2006–2007 (Monteforte-Sánchez etal. 2014), despite their well-
known invasive potential, particularly the second one.
These projects are considered hot spots in the Mexican mariculture and had cor-
ollaries at larger scale (Table27.2). Tuna ranching in La Paz Bay (the MPA) was
rst experienced beyond Ensenada area (Baja California, north State of the
Peninsula) where the largest farm is placed since the early 1990s (Lechuga-Devéze
2012). Unfortunately several problems led the project to fail, principally due to the
level of depletion of tuna wild stock and low captures the boat had to go farther off
and then trawl the capture back, suffering high mortality as a result. Additional dif-
culties to obtain fresh sardine to feed the tuna delivered food shortage. Sardine is
essential for the sport-shery sector as bait; therefore it raised harsh disputes
(Monteforte 2008; Lechuga-Devéze 2012).
In reference to offshore cultivation of non-modied and genetically modied
marine sh, turning them into exotic species had not been tried commercially at that
time aside the salmon industry in course of expansion. The introduction of foreign
species in mariculture was, and continues, being restricted or precautionary princi-
Table 27.2 (continued)
Date/actors
MPA and/or
inuence Actions Outcomes
2005 private foreign
enterprise
BIOTECMAR
Merito-Point Diablo Cage culture of
introduced hybrids of
striped bass Morone
saxatilis x M. chrysops
Project failed. High
mortality from invasion of
local hydrozoans
(Apolemia, Obelia,
Lytocarpus) (Monteforte
etal. Monteforte-Sánchez
etal. 2014)
2006–2007. Same
enterprise
Same site Cage culture of
introduced (normal)
Sparus aurata
Project failed. Legal
problems, strong
opposition in the locality.
Escapees were conrmed
in amounts estimated
between 20,000 and
60,000 fertile individuals
(Monteforte etal.
Monteforte-Sánchez etal.
2014)
(*) The idea of industrial technologic parks was originally based on business centers for electron-
ics, multimedia, software, engines, biomedics, etc. The Monterrey Technologic Institute of
Superior Studies (ITESM) was the entryway of this trend to Mexico. Agriculture and livestock
parks spread out since the 1990s in nations attached to mono-specic production (Soares-Silva et
al. 2016). Several aquaculture-based parks were created at that time, like the TALIARTE in the
Grand Canaria Island, the Cawthron Park in New Zealand, the Büsum Park in Germany (focused
mainly in aquaculture equipment), and Mikimoto Pearl Island in Japan, just to mention some.
27 Integration of Resident Fisherfolk Communities in Marine Protected Areas…
556
pally in developed countries (Europe, United States, Canada, Australia). Cage cul-
ture of hybrid striped bass had not been tried but in the United States by leisure
shery in dams or controlled reservoirs and some experiments of cage culture in
NewYork Bay, Atlantic coast, neither S. aurata away the Mediterranean, yet it had
been already introduced in Aqaba, Israel, and Canarias Islands (Monteforte-Sánchez
etal. 2014). In La Paz Bay the project with hybrid striped bass failed because the
cages and the culture area got infested by aggressive hydrozoans (Lytocarpus nut-
tingi, Apolemia uvaria, Obelia spp.), locally known as “grullas,” a pest for swim-
mers and snorkelers, that led to high mortality to the juvenile sh in the cages. This
natural defense seems quite an uncommon event in sh mariculture (Monteforte-
Sánchez etal. 2014).
The venture with S. aurata yielded satisfactory results, probably they used repel-
lent paint on the cages, or the sh was immune. Nonetheless, some groups of the
local society had been opposing to both projects, in particular the invasive potential
of S. aurata motivated greater awareness. There were queries concerning the legal
import of the sh fry through the La Paz international airport, and the name of
“golden snapper” (pargo dorado) that the entrepreneur invented to disguise the spe-
cies like a member of the regional snappers (Lutjanidae—pargo, huachinango)
raised further suspicions. By July 2007 one escapee was caught way inside Ensenada
de La Paz (Balart etal. 2009), and during the next weeks more specimens caught in
the Bay were donated by shermen. The situation generated a massive movement
against BIOTECMAR, the enterprise proprietary of both projects that culminated in
the closure, extract, and sacrice of the sh and the enactment of an ofcial survey
to estimate the impact. Persons of academic institutions in La Paz (CIBNOR,
UABCS and CICIMAR) and of environmental departments of the municipal gov-
ernment (PROFEPA, CONANP, SEMARNAT) carried out explorations (25
November to 5 December) on snorkeler, SCUBA, and shing nets that resulted in
35 individuals observed free in the MPA area and 3 more captured with the nets in
different parts of the Bay. In addition, contradictions on the amount of sh fry
entered by the airport, the notication to the corresponding departments (SAGARPA/
CONAPESCA) as to how many sh were placed alive in the cages, and the report
of individuals extracted at the time of closure remind us that an amount between
20,000 and 60,000 healthy young adults, many of them aged enough to be fertile,
escaped from the MPA 12years ago (Monteforte-Sánchez etal. 2014). There has
been some physical captures and reports in decreasing frequency to none in the last
4–5years although once in a while news arrive from distant sites (e.g., Loreto, Cabo
San Lucas, even Magdalena Bay and Guaymas). This is not trustable enough to
surmise any forecast.
In synthesis, the contribution of La Paz Bay to the Mexican mariculture has been
minimal in terms of commercial role but signicant in terms of accumulated knowl-
edge and inuence at a larger scale. For example, La Paz has always been source of
multidisciplinary information related to the world history of sheries, commerce,
and culture of nacre and pearls, and the MPA is reputed to be the cradle of the mod-
ern science and technology available for P. sterna and P. mazatlanica (Table27.2).
M. Monteforte-Sánchez
557
In fact, much of the standards for extensive culture and pearl production in Mexico,
8
and used in recent ventures in Latin America, are assigned to results of research
studies carried out in the MPA (see Monteforte 2005, 2013). However, diverse fac-
tors, mainly of oceanographic nature (e.g., lower temperature average, higher pri-
mary productivity, larger coastal lagoon systems), have directed the commercial
mariculture of BCS to the Pacic coast aiming in Japanese oysters Crassostrea
gigas and C. sikamea and a few white-legged shrimp L. vannamei farms. There are
recent development in La Paz Bay (Fig.27.4) with cage culture and aquapods with
this shrimp at its sister species, the brown shrimp Penaeus californiensis and diverse
sh (yellowtail S. lalandi and S. rivoliana, snappers Lutjanus argentiventris and
L. peru, sand seabass Paralabrax maculatofasciatus, and Totoaba macdonaldi).
Most of these projects belong to private transnational enterprises attached to
Biohelix, the CIBNOR’s aquaculture park (Table27.2). Nevertheless, apart from
the private pearl oyster farm at Gaviota Island rooted to the UABCS, commercial
mariculture in the Bay accounts for just three or four pilot scale records of pearl
oysters and gourmet bivalve farms of short duration, all of them placed in the MPA
under study in this chapter.
27.3.2 Mariculture into theMPA Precint: What Works?
The mariculture chronology in La Paz Bay and the MPA reveals the lack of exten-
sion programs to promote integration of sherfolk cooperatives (SCPPs) through
mariculture SMEs, and in the other side there are private projects that monopolize
propitious sites in a disarranged pattern (Fig.27.4) commonly seen around the Gulf
of California (Sonora, Sinaloa, and Nayarit) and other coastal sites in Mexico.
Moreover, the information of each lease
9
could suggest that certied technology is
available for all of the commercial species of sh and bivalves—pearl oysters too,
inhabiting the Gulf of California (CONAPESCA 2018). Undoubtedly the modern
technology should be able to ensure this to happen; even so, the reality does not
reect productive benets from direct applications. Figure27.5 serves to illustrate
the statement on three cases that are ordinary in many areas with attributes for mari-
8
NOM-058-SAG/PESC/SEMARNAT-2013 regulates the pearl oyster cultivation in Mexico:
mother-of-pearl (Pinctada mazatlanica), nacre shell (Pteria sterna), Atlantic mother-of-pearl
(Pinctada imbricata), and Atlantic winged pearl oyster (Pteria colymbus).
9
SAGARPA and CONAPESCA regulate two leasing forms of productive aquaculture for private
groups, cooperatives, or other kinds of entrepreneurial associations: a Permit for Aquaculture
Fomentation (PAF) renewable by merits every 4years (e.g., proofs of good work) that eventually
can be leveled up to an Aquaculture Concession (CA) of 10 or 20years, or it is directly conceded
if the entrepreneurs fulll technical and nancial requirements. The average surface for the licenses
is 10 Ha, up to 20 Ha in some cases of sh farms, amberjack and tuna, in particular. Detailed infor-
mation of PAFs and CAs is of public access online through a tool called Acuasesor (https://acu-
asesor.conapesca.gob.mx/) which contains all about sheries and aquaculture production in
Mexico.
27 Integration of Resident Fisherfolk Communities in Marine Protected Areas…
558
culture in Mexico: La Paz Bay (the gure corresponds to the MPA in scrutiny here),
and the coastal lagoons of Magdalena on the Pacic coast of BCS, and Pabellón-
Altata, this one in Sinaloa, southeast of the Gulf of California. It is conceivable that
the bioecology of bivalves would allow rustic less costly schemes than sh culture,
particularly if laboratory generations are part of the equation; nevertheless, infer-
ences on Fig.27.5 may yield unlikely indicators. Perhaps some of the farms could
have achieved small and sporadic harvests of some species for which the cultivation
technology is sufciently advanced or in process of certication (e.g., pilot har-
vests), so announcing a long list of species seems justiable, or at least technically
feasible. In reality, just a handful of PAF (Permit for Aquaculture Fomentation) or
CA (Aquaculture Concession) sited in La Paz Bayhave commercialized occasional
pilot harvests during the last 38years.
10
The current ventures installed in the study
area (Fig.27.4) announce around 25 species of sh and bivalves overall; this is
likely true in terms technologic feasibility (some species still are in experimental
10
The rst Statistical Yearbook of Aquaculture and Fisheries was published in 1980 (SAGARPA/
CONAPESCA) and has been continued more or less constantly every 2years. Since then, the
Mexican commercial mariculture is concentrated on the east coast of the Gulf of California and the
Pacic coast of the Baja California Peninsula. White-legged shrimp and Japanese oysters are the
ag production. Notably, the only two pearl oyster farms in Mexico are placed in Guaymas and La
Paz. A third one in Cozumel Island is just starting, and there are more in prospect in the Gulf of
California (La Paz, Loreto, and near Cabo San Lucas).
Fig. 27.5 The Acuasesor KML/KMZ layers deploy summary information on each license in
aquatic areas in Mexico. The database contains nearly 2000 records in coastal marine areas. This
gure presents three examples. (Modied from Google Earth with the KML/KMZ layers for PAFs
and CAs available in Acuasesor SAGARPA/CONAPESCA.Updated to 2018)
M. Monteforte-Sánchez
559
stage), but not in terms of commercial production. Furthermore, most of the licenses
(10 Ha in average, up to 20 Ha in some cases of sh farm) belong to private groups
well established in the market. Of course, there are professional specialists in aqua-
culture (e.g., ex-alumni and scientists of academic institutions) that create
entrepreneurial entities. The increasing interest to develop mariculture in La Paz
Bay is certainly novel though a rapid progress is expected; however, academic insti-
tutions display low participation except as a logistic need within the technologic
park (e.g., Biohelix in La Paz or similar schemes like the CREMES and PIDEMAR
in Kino Bay, Sonora), or source of information and solutions, such as diseases,
locally made food, or support to obtain the licenses (PAF, CA) such as elaboration
of technical documents and guidance in administrative procedures, even nancial
funds from the government. Fisherfolks are aware that turning into mariculture
farmers would bring them better income; hence they often seek assistance in gov-
ernment departments like CONAPESCA or in the academic institutions. This is a
global model that has produced bothgood and decient results.
In Mexico, various obstacles prevail for the SCPPs, for example, they are insol-
vent to afford counterpart funds, a mandatory requirement in most government pro-
grams, while knowledge-holder scientists generally confer social extension activity
less priority because it is underrated in academic evaluation criteria. This conver-
gent factors marginalize small entrepreneurs and cooperatives considering that the
installation and operation of a minimally protable aquaculture venture often
exceeds their nancial, logistical, and technological capacity, to which we must add
that for sherfolk that live from their daily work, the waiting for dividends from the
harvest may be untenable, not to mention the inuence of complex group dynamics
and conicts into or among different groups. Table27.2 includes one of these proj-
ects occurred in the MPA between 2010 and 2014. To present it in minimalistic
form, the project attempted to join two SCPPs in developing polyspecic farmin-
g
11
of gourmet bivalves, pearl oysters, and ornamental marine species at pilot scale
(Monteforte and Cariño 2018). Previous socioeconomic surveys in La Paz led us to
contextualize this bipartite SME as a means to optimize scarce funds slowly gained
and share the logistic management of the farm. We needed almost 2years to acquire
the elementary equipment and material to manufacture the cultivation systems and
artifacts and install them in Point Diablo area, including a small temporal work
camp on the Cove. Once everything settled and in function on the site, the next
7months yielded promising results. The sherfolk attained good training level, and
nearly 40,000 specimens of gourmet bivalves distributed in nine species (Fig.27.6)
were growing to young adult stage, including 15,000 P. sterna specimens (Monteforte
and Cariño 2018). A prototype device (inspired on the functional principle of a
“portable” articial reef) to cultivate ornamental marine species in extensive culture
modality was in test process. Nevertheless, the SCCPPs showed disproportionate
commitment to the project, likely because one partner owned better elements to
11
Plans included extensive culture (wild spat collection and grow-out phase in the sea) and semi-
extensive culture (based on the reception of laboratory-reared spat).
27 Integration of Resident Fisherfolk Communities in Marine Protected Areas…
560
accomplish the tasks than the other one (e.g., nancial solvency—in their scale,
infrastructure in La Paz such as workshop and storage area, two vehicles and two
panga boats with 95 HP outboard engine, one air compressor diving gear, etc.). In
particular, this SCPP (6–8 constant workers) was more convinced toward the project
and therefore proved more enthusiastic participation (Fig.27.6) even though the
other SCPP had more than 20 members. However, something else beyond nancial
constraints and possible jealousies was instigating psychologic stress in the back-
grounds (Monteforte and Cariño 2018). We discovered, too late (how did that come
out?), that the senior presidents of the SCPPs had old feuds pendent when the level
of hostilities was nearly uncontrollable. Within a couple of weeks, the installations
were abandoned and vandalized, yet we were able to save about 12,000 specimens
that were used for repopulation (throwing them overboard, basically).
At the bottom line, the double-partnership was a mistake. As Perkins etal. (2002)
put it: “Psychological factors point to what motivates individuals to participate in
particular settings and behaviors, how to maintain that participation, and how those
motivations and behaviors interact with various setting and organizational charac-
teristics to promote effective social capital.” In addition, administrative issues were
Fig. 27.6 Exhibit of some eldwork activities in the mariculture project with two sherfolk coop-
eratives (SCPP) in Diablo Point area (2010–2014). (a) Juveniles of commercial bivalves –pen
shell, Catarina scallop, lion-paw scallop, winged nacre shell, and mule-hoof clam on the mesh
board underneath. (b) and (c) sherfolk of the ‘good’ SCPP in a spat harvest session. (d) A main-
tenance session of Nestier trays containing livestock of bivalve juveniles. (Photos in situ taken by
the author (see text and Table27.2))
M. Monteforte-Sánchez
561
an impasse because aquaculture licenses are given to a single beneciary and cover
only its territory (polygon), even if contiguous projects are the same and/or directed
by the same expert. This pyramidal policy amplies the cost of licenses and the
making of bulky les differentiated only by the name of the licensee and the polygon
shape. Other administrative variables also had parallel impacts; for example, the
cultivation site is part of Balandra-Merito MPA, and some of the targeted species
are under some level of protection (e.g., P. mazatlanica, Pt. sterna, the lion paw
scallop Nodipecten subnudosus, and various sh and invertebrates identied as
ornamental). However, aquaculture permits had been issued in the MPA before the
formal declaration, in particular the CIBNOR has carried out research studies in that
location since 1988 (Table27.2). Ultimately, these issues should have been a minor
hindrance; we always stressed that repopulation would be carried out and that natu-
ral populations would not be touched. The farm itself was seen as a bank of larval
dispersal. Nonetheless, the denouement of experience showed the laxity of the gov-
ernmental bureaucracy and a clear manipulation of federal resources.
27.4 Final Reections
Mariculture comes in many modalities (species, type of technologies, degree of
intensication, etc.). Enterprises and rustic community-based small scale, there
exists a wide range of practices, types, and scales that could provide opportunities
for greater synergies within multiple- use MPAs. Multiple-use designs could also
offer alternative livelihoods to develop sustainable nancing opportunities for the
MPA management (e.g., Brugère et al. 2008; Berkes and Davidson-Hunt 2010;
Davidson-Hunt etal. 2012; Le Gouvello etal. 2017). The assessment of multiple-
use in the case study seems predetermined by natural assets of the MPA related to
ecotourisand to likelihood for mariculture SME models. Gourmet bivalves, pearl
oysters, ornamental marine species, and pan-sized sh species (Lutjanidae and
Serranidae), either in mono or polyspecic modality, may be advised as best conver-
sion/diversication choice for the sherfolk in La Paz Bay so that the MPA could
acquire a socioeconomic role by re-activating its proven potential as productive site.
It stands to reason that sherfolks will be more likely to invest and stay rooted in
places that are worth caring about, places with appealing local identity, an ambiance
of belonging, and a sense of place. In corollary, it is clear that sherfolk t into
distinct frameworks in accordance with species type and culture modalities that
should ensure results within reasonable timeframes in order to prevent them from
losing cohesion and interest towards a project. Since Balandra-Merito MPA has
been submitted to thorough research studies on mariculture, and on environment
and socioeconomic lines, a subsequent review of capacity-building actions might
vindicate the fact that specic approaches are required in order to integrate target
groups in collective projects without disrupting the sense of being local. Fostering a
sense of place or nurturing local identity and authenticity begins by investigating
what site-specic distinctive potentials determine a case study and how they could
27 Integration of Resident Fisherfolk Communities in Marine Protected Areas…
562
be used to raise community capital. This principle should guide to better under-
standing the prole of local and regional players (e.g., Emery and Flora 2006; UN
2011; Davidson-Hunt etal. 2012). Therefore, the livelihood of sherfolk communi-
ties in the context of socio-ecological systems may be interpreted by behavioral
and/or stance expressions of group dynamics toward the management of common-
pools, such as altruism, self-interest, and conformism (Cárdenas and Ostrom 2004;
Vélez et al. 2009); collaboration (e.g., willingness to engage in commitments, a
sense of appropriation, solidarity, and collective participation) (Leopold etal. 2013;
Bennett and Dearden 2014a, b; Barratt et al. 2015); and internal and external
corruption (Tonoyan etal. 2010; Barratt etal. 2015). Moreover, heterogeneous per-
ceptions of conservation and protection introduce broadened meanings to these
expressions. Thus, questions arise when technology-based research is conducted on
production processes such as those involved in aquaculture, in particular when mat-
ters related to gender and/or small communities, and/or isolation and marginaliza-
tion in general, hinder collective/proactive actions.
It could be concluded by arguing that creating added-value in Balandra-Merito
MPA is feasible if the civil society and knowledge-holders reconsider their capacity
for empowerment in the management of this emblematic place. The acquisition of
skills to develop a mariculture in SMEs is a rst step, but not enough. What follows
is to balance the terms with the use, management, and control of the sources and
benets related to the MPA.Advantages and disadvantages will have to be evalu-
ated upon the expectation of ideal sceneries that are difcult to generate. Evidence
indicates that every conversion/ diversication process has to face complex relation-
ships between society and nature, with distinct expressions even among specic
cases locally. In addition, perceptions of privatization, conservation, and production
are deeply interwoven, as are political, socioeconomic, and long-term histories in
which cultural and psychological factors and group dynamics engender crucial
structures.
Acknowledgments Big thanks for the gures to Patricia González-Zamorano and Joaquín
Rivera-Rosas of the Laboratory of Geographic Information Systems and also to Gerardo
R.Hernández-García of the Department of Extension and Scientic Diffusion, both CIBNOR’s.
All the structural information in reference to the study site comes from published work either by
the author, or extracted from academic databases, or can be consulted in government portals acces-
sible to the public in internet. In the list of pioneers presented in Table27.2 probably I forgot to add
more than one, or nobody. My apologies. Finally, some may criticize the excessive auto-citation:
I cannot help it; this MPA has been my professional eldwork for nearly 30years.
References
Adame MF, Najera E, Lovelock CE, Brown CJ (2018) Avoided emissions and conservation of
scrub mangroves: potential for a Blue Carbon project in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Biol
Lett 14. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0400
Agardy T, Di Sciara GN, Christie P (2011) Mind the gap: addressing the shortcomings of marine
protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning. Mar Policy 35(2):226–232
M. Monteforte-Sánchez
563
Anderson R (2017) Roads, value, and dispossession in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Eco Anthropol
4(1):7–21
Arreola-Lizárraga JA, Flores-Verdugo FJ, Ortega-Rubio A (2004) Structure and litterfall of an arid
mangrove stand on the Gulf of California, Mexico. Aquat Bot 79(2):137–143
Ateweberhan M, Hudson J, Rougier A, Jiddawi NS, Msuya F, Stead SM, Harris A (2018)
Community based aquaculture in the western Indian Ocean: challenges and opportunities
for developing sustainable coastal livelihoods. Eco Soc 23(4):17. https://doi.org/10.5751/
ES-10411-230417
Awortwi N (2012) The riddle of community development: factors inuencing participation and
management in twenty-nine African and Latin American communities. Community Dev J
48(1):89–104
Balart EF, Pérez-Urbiola JC, Campos-Dávila L, Monteforte M, & Ortega-Rubio A (2009) On the
rst record of a potentially harmful sh, Sparus aurata in the Gulf of California. Biological
invasions, 11(3):547–550
Barratt C, Seeley J, Allison EH (2015) Lacking the means or the motivation? Exploring the experi-
ence of community-based resource management among sherfolk on Lake Victoria, Uganda.
Eur J Dev Res 27(2):257–272
Bennett NJ, Dearden P (2014a) Why local people do not support conservation? Community per-
ceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand.
Mar Policy 44:107–116
Bennett NJ, Dearden P (2014b) From measuring outcomes to providing inputs: governance,
management, and local development for more effective marine protected areas. Mar Policy
50:96–110
Bennett NJ, Govan H, Sattereld T (2015) Ocean grabbing. Mar Policy 57:61–68
Berkes F, Davidson-Hunt TJ (2010) Innovating through commons use: community-based enter-
prises. Int J Commons 4(1):4pp
Boley B, Nickerson N, Bosak K (2016) Abstract: a critical examination exploring the differences
between Geotourism and ecotourism. Travel and Tourism Research Association: Advancing
Tourism Research Globally. University of Massachusetts Amherst. https://scholarworks.umass.
edu/ttra/2009/Abstracts/1
Bondad-Reantaso MG, Bueno PB, Demaine H, Pongthanapanich T (2009) Development of an
indicator system for measuring the contribution of small-scale aquaculture to sustainable
rural development. In: Bondad- Reantaso MG, Prein M (eds) Measuring the contribution of
small-scale aquaculture: an assessment. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 534,
pp161–179
Bottema MJ, Bush SR (2012) The durability of private sector-led marine conservation: a case study
of two entrepreneurial marine protected areas in Indonesia. Ocean Coast Manag 61:38–48
Briscoe DK, Maxwell M, Kudela R, Crowder LB, Croll D (2016) Are we missing important areas
in pelagic marine conservation? Redening conservation hotspots in the ocean. Endanger
Species Res 29(3):229–237
Brugère C, Felsing M, Kusakabe K, Kelkar G, Colls (2001) Women in aquaculture. Asia-Pacic
economic cooperation, project FWG 03/99. Ed. University of Stirling, 61pp
Brugère C, Holvoet K, Allison E (2008) Livelihood diversication in coastal and inland shing
communities: misconceptions, evidence and implications for sheries management, Working
paper, Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme (SFLP). FAO/DFID, Rome
Cadena-Cárdenas L, Méndez-Rodríguez L, Zenteno-Savín T, García-Hernández J, Acosta-Vargas
B (2009) Heavy metal levels in marine mollusks from areas with, or without, mining activities
along the Gulf of California, Mexico. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 57(1):96–102
Cárdenas JC, Ostrom E (2004) What do people bring into the game? Experiments in the eld about
cooperation in the commons. Agric Syst 82:307–326
Cariño M (1998) El porvenir de la Baja California está en sus mare. In: Vida y legado de Gastón
J. Vives Gourieux, el primer maricultor de América. Ed. H. Congreso del Estado de Baja
California Sur, México
27 Integration of Resident Fisherfolk Communities in Marine Protected Areas…
564
Cariño M and Monteforte M (1999) El primer emporio perlero sustentable del mundo: La
Compañía Criadora de Concha y Perla de la Baja California, S.A. y perspectivas para México.
Editorial UABCS, CONACULTA, FONCA.México D.F
Cariño M, Cordero-Sauceda NL, Zariñán J (2008) Procesos de conservación impulsados por la
gestión de las ONG que trabajan en Baja California Sur. In: Cariño M, Monteforte M (Coords.)
Del saqueo a la conservación. Historia ambiental contemporánea de Baja California Sur
(1940–2003). Ed. UABCS, SEMARNAT, INE, CONACYT, pp673–722
Cuéllar-Lugo MB, Hoyos AA, Juárez-Sánchez JP, Mendiola JLR, López FG (2018) Normative
and institutional evolution of aquaculture in Mexico. Agricultura, Sociedad y Desarrollo
15(4):541–564
CONAPESCA (2018) Anuario Estadístico de Pesca y Acuacultura. SAGARPA/CONAPESCA
https://acuasesor.conapesca.gob.mx/
Cundill G, Bezerra JC, De Vos A, Ntingana N (2017) Beyond benet sharing: place attachment
and the importance of access to protected areas for surrounding communities. Ecosyst Serv
28:140–148
Dahlstrom MF (2014) Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with non-expert
audiences. PNAS 111(4):13614–13620
Davidson-Hunt IJ, Turner KL, Mead ATP, Cabrera-Lopez J etal (2012) Biocultural design: a new
conceptual framework for sustainable development in rural indigenous and local communities.
SAPIENS 5(2):33–45
DOF [Diario Ocial de la Federación] 30/11/2012. Secretaría de Gobernación, México. http://dof.
gob.mx/nota_detalle.php
Du W, Penabaz-Wiley SM, Njeru AM, Kinoshita I (2015) Models and approaches for integrating
protected areas with their surroundings: a review of the literature. Sustainability 7(7):8151–8177
Emery M, Flora C (2006) Spiraling-up: mapping community transformation with community capi-
tals framework. Community Dev 37(1):19–35
Ferse SC, Knittweis L, Krause G, Maddusila A, Glaser M (2012) Livelihoods of ornamental
coral shermen in South Sulawesi/Indonesia: implications for management. Coast Manag
40(5):525–555
Fraga J, Jesus A (2008) Coastal and marine protected areas in Mexico. Samudra monograph,
International Collective in Support of Fisherworkers (ICSF), Chennai, 97pp
Gámez AE (2008) Turismo y sustentabilidad a la vera de áreas naturales protegidas. In: AE Gámez
(Ed.). Turismo y sustentabilidad en Cabo Pulmo, BCS, Pub. San Diego State University, pp11–30
Gámez AE, Angeles M (2010) Borders within. Tourism growth, migration and regional polariza-
tion in Baja California Sur (Mexico). Borderl Stud 25(1):1–18
Guzmán-Vizcarra E, Ibáñez-Pérez RM (2018) Percepción de necesidades y cohesión social en
comunidades pesqueras de México. Análisis de sociedades cooperativas de la Bahía de la
Paz, BCS, México. Revista Contribuciones a las Ciencias Sociales (Abril 2018) https://www.
eumed.net/rev/cccss/2018/04/sociedades-cooperativas-mexico.html. Accessed 12 Dec 2019
Haeffner M, Baggio JA, Galvin K (2018) Investigating environmental migration and other
rural drought adaptation strategies in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Reg Environ Chang
18(5):1495–1507
Havard L, Brigand L, Cariño M (2015) Stakeholder participation in decision-making processes
for marine and coastal protected areas: case studies of the south-western Gulf of California,
Mexico. Ocean Coast Manag 116:116–131
Hill A (2017) Blue grabbing: reviewing marine conservation in Redang island marine park,
Malaysia. Geoforum 79:97–100
Hjalager AM, Johansen PH (2013) Food tourism in protected areas–sustainability for producers,
the environment and tourism? J Sustain Tour 21(3):417–433
Le Gouvello R, Hochart LE, Laffoley D, Simard F, Andrade C, Angel D etal (2017) Aquaculture
and marine protected areas: potential opportunities and synergies. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat
Ecosyst 27:138–150
Lechuga-Devéze CH (2012) Una piscicultura sustentable: Bahía de La Paz, Golfo de California,
un caso de estudio. Editorial Académica Española, Starbrucken
M. Monteforte-Sánchez
565
Leopold M, Beckensteiner J, Kaltavara J, Raubani J, Caillon S (2013) Community-based manage-
ment of near-shore sheries in Vanuatu: what works? Mar Policy 42:167–176
López-Cortés D, Bustilllos-Guzmán J, Hernández-Sandoval F, Núñez-Vázquez EJ (2012) Ambiente
Acuático. In: Lechuga-Devéze CH (ed) Una piscicultura sustentable: Bahía de La Paz, Golfo
de California, un caso de estudio. Editorial Académica Española, Starbrucken, pp31–62
Ma KL, Liao I, Frazier J, Hauser H, Kostis HN (2011) Scientic storytelling using visualization.
IEEE Comput Graph Appl 32(1):12–19
McEvoy J (2014) Desalination and water security: the promise and perils of a technological x to
the water crisis in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Water Altern 7(3):518–541
Monteforte M (2005) Ecología, biología y cultivo extensivo de la madreperla de Calaa, Pinctada
mazatlanica, y la concha nácar arcoíris, Pteria sterna, en Bahía de La Paz, Baja California Sur,
México. Post-PhD thesis, Universidad de La Habana, Cuba
Monteforte M (2008) Modelos de Desarrollo Acuícola en Baja California Sur: ¿Saqueo o Alternativa
Sustentable? In: M Cariño and M Monteforte (Coords) Del Saqueo a la Conservación.
Historia Ambiental Contemporánea de Baja California Sur (1940-2003). Editorial UABCS,
SEMARNAT, INE, CONACYT (México, D.F.), pp337–364
Monteforte M (2013) Instalación y operación de granjas perleras. Un manual para Pinctada mazat-
lanica y Pteria sterna. Editorial Académica Española, Starbucken
Monteforte M, Cariño M (2009) El Mar de Cortés no existe. Biodiversitas 86:12–15
Monteforte M, Cariño M (2011) Maricultura: Oportunidad de conversión sustentable para la pesca
ribereña. Ciencia, tecnología e innovación para el desarrollo de México. PCTI, 78. http://pcti.
mx. Accessed 26 Feb 2018
Monteforte M, Cariño M (2013) Condiciones para el desarrollo de granjas perleras y producción
de perlas: Estado del arte, potencial y perspectivas. Rev Biol Mar Oceanogr 48(1):1–16
Monteforte M, Cariño M (2018) A history of nacre and pearls in the Gulf of California. In: Price
LL, Narchi NE (eds) Coastal heritage and cultural resilience. Springer, Cham, pp79–112
Monteforte-Sánchez M, Balart E, Pérez-Urbiola JC, Ortega-Rubio A (2014) Rentabilidad empre-
sarial vs. protección contra especies acuáticas invasoras: Dilema para el desarrollo de la acua-
cultura, caso Bahía de La Paz, Baja California Sur, México. In: Low-Pfeng AM, Quijón PA,
Recagno EMP (eds) SEMARNAT, INECC, University of Prince Edwards, pp567–602
Morales-Díaz A (2015) Historia de la Acuicultura en México. Peces, Crustáceos y Moluscos. AGT
Editor, México D.F.
Murray G (2007) Constructing paradise: the impacts of big tourism in the Mexican coastal zone.
Coast Manag 35(2–3):339–355
Obeso-Nieblas M, Gaviño RJH, Jiménez-Illescas AR, Rafael-Shirasago GB (2002) Simulación
numérica de la circulación por marea y viento del noroeste y sur en la Bahía de La Paz,
B.C.S.Oceánides 17(1):1–12
Obeso-Nieblas M, Gaviño-Rodríguez JH, Obeso-Huerta H, Muñoz-Casillas SI (2014) Variabilidad
espacial termohalina, masas de agua y circulación geostróca en Bahía de La Paz, Golfo de
California. Rev Biol Mar Oceanogr 49(3):413–426
Oldekop JA, Holmes G, Harris WE, Evans KL (2016) A global assessment of the social and con-
servation outcomes of protected areas. Conserv Biol 30(1):133–141
Perkins DD, Hughey J, Speer PW (2002) Community psychology perspectives on social capital
theory and community development practice. Community Dev Soc J 33(1):33–52
Segi S (2014) Protecting or pilfering? Neoliberal conservationist marine protected areas in the
experience of coastal Granada, the Philippines. Hum Ecol 42(4):565–575
Silverberg N, Aguirre-Bahena F, Mucci A (2014) Time-series measurements of settling particu-
late matter in Alfonso Basin, La Paz Bay, southwestern gulf of California. Cont Shelf Res
84:169–187
Slater MJ, Mgaya YD, Mill AC, Rushton SP, Stead SM (2013) Effect of social and economic driv-
ers on choosing aquaculture as a coastal livelihood. Ocean Coast Manag 73:22–30
Soares-Silva AL, das-Chagas-Teles Â, Machado-de-Aragão-Gomes I, y Leitão-Russo, S (2016)
Ciencia y parques tecnológicos. Evidencia en América, Asia y Europa. Razón y Palabra,
20(2–93):473–482
27 Integration of Resident Fisherfolk Communities in Marine Protected Areas…
566
Tonoyan V, Strohmeyer R, Habib M, Perlitz M (2010) Corruption and entrepreneurship: how for-
mal and informal institutions shape small rm behavior in transition and mature market econo-
mies. Entrep Theory Pract 34(5):803–832
UN [United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies Operating Unit Ishikawa/Kanazawa]
(2011) Biological and cultural diversity in coastal communities: exploring the potential of
Satoumi for implementing the ecosystem approach in the Japanese archipelago. Secretariat of
the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Technical Series no 61
Vélez MA, Stranlund JK, James JM (2009) What motivates common pool resource users?
Experimental evidence from the eld. J Econ Behav Organ 70(3):485–489
Woodhouse E, Bedelian C, Dawson N, Barnes P (2018) Social impacts of protected areas: exploring
evidence of trade-offs and synergies. In: Schreckenberg K, Mace G, Poudyal M (eds) Ecosystem
services and poverty alleviation. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Pubs, London, pp222–239
M. Monteforte-Sánchez
